By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
Defendants, and some plaintiffs, can have a source problem when it comes to legal persuasion. They’re already seen as morally questionable, and that makes whatever claims are coming from them already suspect. For defendants, they’re tainted because something bad happened and they’re “the accused.” And some plaintiffs also get that implied accusation directed at them because they’re the ones bringing a lawsuit, and it could be motivated by money. For both sides, the setting can end up “poisoning the well,” with the very arguments that could help to change these perceptions being initially distrusted because of their source. So how do parties get past that?
According to some recent research (Sundar & Cao, 2018), part of the solution lies in language. The study, conducted by researchers from the University of Oregon and the University of Washington, looked at language within the context of branding by companies that have been hit with questions about their ethics — a situation that parallels many legal cases. Over the course of three studies, they looked at messages varying the component of “politeness” — language that is more formal and distanced — versus more direct and personal language. One might think that politeness helps, and the more the better. But what they found is that the impersonal and polite language leads to more negative attitudes against a company charged with ethically ambiguous business practices. In this post, I’ll take a look at why that is, and what specific elements of language help to build greater connection and trust.
Politeness is Punished
It is important to note that the researchers use the term “politeness” in the sense of formality rather than civility. I think litigators would say, with justification enforced from the bench, that in legal processes in and out of court, one is always civil. But when it comes to language use, that overly-formal version of politeness can be a distancing factor. The hypercorrect, abstract, and even stuffy forms of address, create a separation between the speaker and the listener. Especially coming from a party accused of ethically ambiguous actions whose intentions are questioned, politeness and formality can seem like a cover. In addition to their own studies showing a greater tendency to develop negative attitudes in response to impersonal and formal language, the authors also report on studies indicating that the greater the social distance between you and a party, the greater any moral transgressions by that party will be perceived to be. In that context, polite language increases distance which in turn increases the desire to punish.
Particularly When the World Isn’t Just
I have written before about the psychological belief system known as “Belief in a Just World.” It is an implicit bias that varies in the population, and those with high levels of this bias believe that things tend to happen as they should, and people generally get what they deserve. When people are high in just-world beliefs, they will tend to blame the victim, wanting to believe that the bad event would have been avoided if only that person had taken greater care.
In the research studies described above, the authors understood that prior beliefs about a company matter, which is why they relied on fictitious companies in their tests. They also found that the negative effects of polite and formal language mattered only for a particular group: Those who are low in just-world beliefs. These beliefs correlate with conservative attitudes including conformity, and politeness is part of that conformity. For those individuals, distancing language didn’t help, but did not hurt significantly either. The relationship between formal language and lower credibility was instead present only for those who are low in just-world beliefs.
So Here Are the Ways to Make Language More Personal and Less ‘Polite’
Do This:
- Use conversational language
- Use understood idioms (“the company was a flash in the pan”)
- Use contractions
- Use personal pronouns such as “you” and “we”
- Make arguments that presuppose common ground (“as we all know…” or “but none of us would like it if…”)
Avoid This:
- Honorifics, like “sir” and “ladies and gentlemen of the jury” (although you may want to keep “your honor“)
- Subjunctive mood (“You might say” or “I would argue”)
The authors also include one example drawn from online text from a big and often embattled agricultural company which includes many of the features of informal language that they studied:
“At Monsanto, we’re all about sustainable solutions. That’s why we’re committed to getting the public involved in a global conversation about the methods we’re using in order to help grow enough food for a growing world. These methods not only have direct applications for our food supply, but warrant a conversation about global sustainability and biodiversity, too — which is why if you’ve got questions, we’ve got answers. Ask your own question regarding anything from honey bee health, to the effect of GMOs, to sustainability in agriculture and more.“
Other Posts on Language:
Sundar, A., & Cao, E. S. (2018). Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-22.